Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA Calculator Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2013-12-04 3:45 PM

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: ACA Calculator

So I found this calculator thing, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/30/226456791/how-much-will-obamacare-cost-me-try-our-calculator

 

mine came in around $180 a month for a silver plan in Maryland.

 

ETA: 1 single male, no children



Edited by dmiller5 2013-12-04 4:05 PM


2013-12-04 4:03 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$7,601 per year
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$3,490 per year
(which covers 46% of the overall premium)
Amount you pay for the premium:$4,111 per year
2013-12-04 4:29 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy.

I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate.

In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
2013-12-04 4:34 PM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.

It does tell you if there is a subsidy. I entered my income, it said I was above the minimum threshold and therefore received no subsidy. Also, I noticed that the older you are, the more you paid.

2013-12-04 4:46 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.

It does tell you if there is a subsidy. I entered my income, it said I was above the minimum threshold and therefore received no subsidy. Also, I noticed that the older you are, the more you paid.




Sorry I wasn't more concise. I know the calculator has the info but when you stated your cost you did not indicate in the original post if that did or did not include a subsidy. I hope that helps.

2013-12-04 4:53 PM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Extreme Veteran
3023
20001000
Maryland
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

ohh, my bad. No, mine was without subsidy, but at 24 years old it appears my insurance is MUCH cheaper than a 40 year old with the same income level and family life. It makes me feel a little better about the concern that young people would be saddled with huge, unaffordable insurance premiums to care for the old.

 



2013-12-04 5:02 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
I'd pay just over $300 a month for my wife and I combined. That's way more than we pay now. Good thing I have a good job and work at a company that offers good benefits. We are not eligible for subsidies. People who don't get free or relatively inexpensive health insurance should just go get a better job.
2013-12-04 5:03 PM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by Stuartap

I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy.

I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate.

In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.



Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?
2013-12-04 5:33 PM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

The pompous jerks with the good jobs and cheap healthcare would pay for it, that's who!

2013-12-04 5:35 PM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by mr2tony

Originally posted by Stuartap

I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy.

I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate.

In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.



Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?


Yes the taxpayers pay for that as well. My issue is not with people having insurance, it is with the dishonest characterization of the entire ACA endeavor. Let me illustrate:

1) Everyone talks about 'free' services like preventative care. Unless the doctor is not getting paid, they are not free. The cost is being covered by the high premiums.

2) Costs of these plans across all age spectrums are NOT cheaper than existing plans. Paying less in premium because there is a subside is not the same as a premium that is actually lower cost.

3) ACA is NOT going to solve the uninsured problem. According to the CBO there will still be $30 Million uninsured in 2022.

4) The subsidies are intended to get uninsured coverage is missing the mark. Most people getting subsidies currently have coverage. Moreover, many small businesses with lower wage employees are dropping coverage because they can push their employees to an exchange where the cost will shift from the employer to the taxpayer.

5) These are NOT better plans than the high deductible plans the president so vehemently attacked during the process. The lowest premium plans in CA have a higher deductible and max out of pocket than any HDHP available in the state today.

6) There are two big issues that are not being discussed.
(a) First, the cost of drug copays will be much higher. Here in CA on all Bronze and Silver plans the cost of generic drugs is a $19.00 co-pay. I pay on average $4.00 for my generic drugs today.
(b) The networks will decidedly smaller than current networks. Based on my clients, the average PPO network for an Anthem obamacare plan has only 60% of the providers as compared to the network today.

My bottom line is this. ACA will not deliver on its promises because that is not the bill we got. It will become yet another govt entitlement program the will further us down the road to bankruptcy. I don't care if you like ACA or not, but let's at least be honest about it.
2013-12-04 5:52 PM
in reply to: Aarondb4

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by Aarondb4

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

The pompous jerks with the good jobs and cheap healthcare would pay for it, that's who!




Since you dislike those 'pompous jerks' so much you will be pleased to know they are disappearing in the US. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So most Americans who lost jobs classified the middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 and higher-wage occupations — those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55 are now working at Wal-Mart. As real wages continue to tumble pretty soon there will be an insufficient number of 'pompous jerks' to feed the growing avarice of the federal govt and then they will have no choice to come knocking on your door and reaching into your pocket.


2013-12-05 12:12 AM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

Mine for a family of 5 in Nebraska was (I don't qualify for any subsidies):

$11,351 per year

Oh, but at least my maximum out of pocket is $12,700 (not counting subsidies):

So my current plan that costs me ~$8400/year and has a maximum out of pocket of $7500 was obviously way too cheap.  

Fortunately we were able to renew our plan for one more year by doing it this month, so I got to do my government impersonation and kick the can down the road 12 months.  

 

2013-12-05 12:32 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by tuwood

Mine for a family of 5 in Nebraska was (I don't qualify for any subsidies):

$11,351 per year

Oh, but at least my maximum out of pocket is $12,700 (not counting subsidies):

So my current plan that costs me ~$8400/year and has a maximum out of pocket of $7500 was obviously way too cheap.  

Fortunately we were able to renew our plan for one more year by doing it this month, so I got to do my government impersonation and kick the can down the road 12 months.  

 




Tony I wish I could get that deal for my clients, only $11,351/year. For just my wife and I (mid 50s) the cheapest plan is over $14,000/year. Luckily my plan is grandfathered so I will only be paying $7000/year. Now in the interest of full disclosure my plan is one of those awful high deductible plans the obama attacked during the campaign. By definition, this high deductible plan has a LOWER deductible and LOWER max out of pocket than the obamacare plan. Than G_d the ACA was passed to protect me!
2013-12-05 2:55 AM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
For a family of 6 in Indiana (hypothetical, since we're still a family of 5 in China)
Household income in 2014:
313% of poverty level
Maximum % of income you have to pay for the premium, if eligible for a subsidy:
9.5%
Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):
$13,773 per year
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$4,368 per year
(which covers 32% of the overall premium)
Amount you pay for the premium:
$9,405 per year
(which equals 9.5% of your household income and covers 68% of the overall premium)
The funny thing is:  I haven't ever paid anything close to $4,368 in federal income taxes.   So, even though they would be "taxing" me by forcing me to buy a service... I'd still be "on welfare" from the government - no net income tax. 
2013-12-05 7:54 AM
in reply to: mr2tony

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by mr2tony

I'd pay just over $300 a month for my wife and I combined. That's way more than we pay now. Good thing I have a good job and work at a company that offers good benefits. We are not eligible for subsidies. People who don't get free or relatively inexpensive health insurance should just go get a better job.


Just wait until 2014, you too could be affected. Hopefully not, but millions with that "better job" will.
2013-12-05 10:18 AM
in reply to: NXS

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by NXS

Originally posted by mr2tony

I'd pay just over $300 a month for my wife and I combined. That's way more than we pay now. Good thing I have a good job and work at a company that offers good benefits. We are not eligible for subsidies. People who don't get free or relatively inexpensive health insurance should just go get a better job.


Just wait until 2014, you too could be affected. Hopefully not, but millions with that "better job" will.


I think 2015 is when big business will be impacted by ACA since obama gave them a pass for a year. But that is just half of the problem. As I posted above, those 'better jobs' are disappearing.

According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So while it easy to say " just go get a better job", those better jobs are disappearing. At those wages the people holding those jobs will qualify for subsidies. Can you say 'More Taxes!'?


2013-12-05 10:42 AM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by Stuartap

Originally posted by Aarondb4

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

The pompous jerks with the good jobs and cheap healthcare would pay for it, that's who!




Since you dislike those 'pompous jerks' so much you will be pleased to know they are disappearing in the US. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So most Americans who lost jobs classified the middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 and higher-wage occupations — those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55 are now working at Wal-Mart. As real wages continue to tumble pretty soon there will be an insufficient number of 'pompous jerks' to feed the growing avarice of the federal govt and then they will have no choice to come knocking on your door and reaching into your pocket.



This opens a whole new can of worms -- why isn't the unemployment rate falling and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?
2013-12-05 11:44 AM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by mr2tony

Originally posted by Stuartap

Originally posted by Aarondb4

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

The pompous jerks with the good jobs and cheap healthcare would pay for it, that's who!




Since you dislike those 'pompous jerks' so much you will be pleased to know they are disappearing in the US. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So most Americans who lost jobs classified the middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 and higher-wage occupations — those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55 are now working at Wal-Mart. As real wages continue to tumble pretty soon there will be an insufficient number of 'pompous jerks' to feed the growing avarice of the federal govt and then they will have no choice to come knocking on your door and reaching into your pocket.



This opens a whole new can of worms -- why isn't the unemployment rate falling and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?


To be fair, the reported unemployment rate has been falling. Unfortunately that is counted by people collecting unemployment benefits. So the reported rate is declining a bit because of (1) people running out of two years of benefits and drop off the rolls without ever finding a job, (2) people taking survival jobs at 7-Elelven instead of the engineering job they had (3) people taking part-time jobs because no full-time jobs are available and (4) people just giving up and going on the public assistance rolls.

I have a client with 49 employees. He needs more help but will only hire contractors for two reasons. First he can have them work 40 hours or 10 hours depending on what he needs and only pay them for when they work. Second he does not want to cross the line to 50+ employees and be forced to provide healthcare. He does now but wants the right to drop it if costs continue to spiral out of control without penalty. Very very sad.
2013-12-05 11:46 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Atlanta, Georgia
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

Originally posted by mr2tony 

 and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?

Just butting in here. But I work for a manufacturing company and we ARE hiring (in three states - all of our US sites). 



Edited by lisac957 2013-12-05 11:53 AM
2013-12-05 12:05 PM
in reply to: lisac957

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by lisac957

Originally posted by mr2tony 

 and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?

Just butting in here. But I work for a manufacturing company and we ARE hiring (in three states - all of our US sites). 




Lisa that is great. Unfortunately yours is the exception and not the rule. Every study done in the past few years has yielded the same results; higher paying jobs are being replaced with lower paying jobs.

Hopefully the rebound in the housing market will stimulate some new construction jobs as well.

Nice to hear some positive news though!
2013-12-05 1:22 PM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by Stuartap

Originally posted by mr2tony

Originally posted by Stuartap

Originally posted by Aarondb4

Originally posted by mr2tony
Originally posted by Stuartap I hate to be nitpicky here but that information, while interesting, is kind off irrelevant without knowing if that does or does not include a subsidy. I have seen on other posts the comment that a family of 4 people making $30,000/year will only have an annual premium of $600 as a validation of how good obamacare is. The problem is that information is both misleading and inaccurate. In the case of the family referenced above the actual 'premium' based on a national average is $9416. They may only have to pay $600/year because they are reaching into the taxpayers pockets for the rest (or adding it to the national debt which may be more accurate). This does NOT reduce the cost of healthcare. It in fact has zero impact on the cost of healthcare. All it does is shift the cost via redistribution of wealth.
Sooooo ... if they didn't have that insurance and had a catastrophic accident, say all four were involved in a car wreck where they broke a lot of bones and had head trauma and so on, then who do you think would pay for their healthcare in that situation?

The pompous jerks with the good jobs and cheap healthcare would pay for it, that's who!




Since you dislike those 'pompous jerks' so much you will be pleased to know they are disappearing in the US. According to a report from the National Employment Law Project released in August 2013 those jobs are being replaced with low paying jobs. Lower-wage occupations, with median hourly wages of $7.69 to $13.83, accounted for 21 percent of job losses during the retraction. Since employment started expanding, they have accounted for 58 percent of all job growth.

So most Americans who lost jobs classified the middle third — occupations in fields like construction, manufacturing and information, with median hourly wages of $13.84 to $21.13 and higher-wage occupations — those with a median wage of $21.14 to $54.55 are now working at Wal-Mart. As real wages continue to tumble pretty soon there will be an insufficient number of 'pompous jerks' to feed the growing avarice of the federal govt and then they will have no choice to come knocking on your door and reaching into your pocket.



This opens a whole new can of worms -- why isn't the unemployment rate falling and why are manufacturers and construction companies not hiring right now?


To be fair, the reported unemployment rate has been falling. Unfortunately that is counted by people collecting unemployment benefits. So the reported rate is declining a bit because of (1) people running out of two years of benefits and drop off the rolls without ever finding a job, (2) people taking survival jobs at 7-Elelven instead of the engineering job they had (3) people taking part-time jobs because no full-time jobs are available and (4) people just giving up and going on the public assistance rolls.

I have a client with 49 employees. He needs more help but will only hire contractors for two reasons. First he can have them work 40 hours or 10 hours depending on what he needs and only pay them for when they work. Second he does not want to cross the line to 50+ employees and be forced to provide healthcare. He does now but wants the right to drop it if costs continue to spiral out of control without penalty. Very very sad.



So your client is afraid to grow because the cost of doing business is too high. Got it.

That says to me one of three things: He's not ambitious or confident enough in his business' ability to increase revenue enough to offset the costs of providing insurance, he doesn't want to treat the people who are working hard to make him money right by giving them benefits, or he simply doesn't need one or two or 10 more people and will continue to be a small business. If he's making enough money and is happy with his station in life, then good for him.

The fact is the law isn't going away so he better get used to being a company that employs no more than 49 people or find a way to increase revenue enough that it makes sense to expand.


2013-12-05 2:05 PM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
mr2Tony he actually doesn't have to get used to being a small employer. I have had two clients over the past two years break up their companies by division into distinct legal entities to get under 50 Employees each. Both are growing and both provide benefits. They are just not going to subject themselves to the large group penalties.

We certainly agree this law is not going away. But please don't underestimate the American people in finding ways to avoid, evade or game govt regs. Not saying it is right, just a reality.

Moreover, as people begin to realize the impact this is going to have on their pocketbooks, expect more to game. Most people are focused on premiums and deductibles etc. Many are not looking into the details. Generic drugs on the cheaper bronze & silver plans for instance are going to be $19.00, not the $4.00 - $10.00 they pay now. Most networks from the same insurance company you may have now will have much smaller networks with the obamacare plans. So much for keeping your doctors.
2013-12-05 2:20 PM
in reply to: Stuartap

User image

Champion
34263
500050005000500050005000200020001001002525
Chicago
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by Stuartap

mr2Tony he actually doesn't have to get used to being a small employer. I have had two clients over the past two years break up their companies by division into distinct legal entities to get under 50 Employees each. Both are growing and both provide benefits. They are just not going to subject themselves to the large group penalties.

We certainly agree this law is not going away. But please don't underestimate the American people in finding ways to avoid, evade or game govt regs. Not saying it is right, just a reality.

Moreover, as people begin to realize the impact this is going to have on their pocketbooks, expect more to game. Most people are focused on premiums and deductibles etc. Many are not looking into the details. Generic drugs on the cheaper bronze & silver plans for instance are going to be $19.00, not the $4.00 - $10.00 they pay now. Most networks from the same insurance company you may have now will have much smaller networks with the obamacare plans. So much for keeping your doctors.



Right you're referring to the people who already have insurance -- that they're going to pay more. While SOME will pay more, SOME will pay less and people who previously didn't have insurance will now have the option to buy insurance. Now, it's up to them to actually go out and buy the insurance. Instead of telling people to NOT sign up for insurance under Obamacare for political gain, people should be encouraging those who didn't have insurance before to go sign up if for no other reason than it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Having insurance isn't a bad thing, and while it's easy for us who have good insurance and have always had good insurance to and moan and complain that it raises our rates, or in your case HYPOTHETICALLY raise your rates, people who've had zero option for health insurance in the past now have that peace of mind.

Also, people who have pre-existing conditions including cancer can't be denied coverage. I know I'm a `bleeding heart' over here but I honestly can't see how that's a bad thing. You call it redistribution of wealth, but even if I paid for my healthcare under the ACA out of my pocket, it'd total less than 4% of my income, and that's without subsides. I wouldn't be too upset considering that would keep me from havnig to declare bankruptcy if I get knocked off my bike by a drunk or texting driver while hopefully providing healthcare that will keep someone else from having to declare bankruptcy if they get knocked off their bike by a drunk or texting driver.
2013-12-05 2:50 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
2261
20001001002525
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator

Originally posted by dmiller5

So I found this calculator thing, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/30/226456791/how-much-will-obamacare-cost-me-try-our-calculator

mine came in around $180 a month for a silver plan in Maryland. 

ETA: 1 single male, no children

So for a silver plan for my situation, the US average is $2,756/yr

but...

I live in Mississippi, so my cost would actually be $4,180/yr (65% higher than the average).  That sounds fair...

Edit: I pay far less than either figure currently for insurance.  I guess I fall in that "good job" category.

 



Edited by msteiner 2013-12-05 2:53 PM
2013-12-05 3:49 PM
in reply to: mr2tony

User image

Extreme Veteran
1190
1000100252525
Silicon Valley
Subject: RE: ACA Calculator
Originally posted by mr2tony

Originally posted by Stuartap

mr2Tony he actually doesn't have to get used to being a small employer. I have had two clients over the past two years break up their companies by division into distinct legal entities to get under 50 Employees each. Both are growing and both provide benefits. They are just not going to subject themselves to the large group penalties.

We certainly agree this law is not going away. But please don't underestimate the American people in finding ways to avoid, evade or game govt regs. Not saying it is right, just a reality.

Moreover, as people begin to realize the impact this is going to have on their pocketbooks, expect more to game. Most people are focused on premiums and deductibles etc. Many are not looking into the details. Generic drugs on the cheaper bronze & silver plans for instance are going to be $19.00, not the $4.00 - $10.00 they pay now. Most networks from the same insurance company you may have now will have much smaller networks with the obamacare plans. So much for keeping your doctors.



Right you're referring to the people who already have insurance -- that they're going to pay more. While SOME will pay more, SOME will pay less and people who previously didn't have insurance will now have the option to buy insurance. Now, it's up to them to actually go out and buy the insurance. Instead of telling people to NOT sign up for insurance under Obamacare for political gain, people should be encouraging those who didn't have insurance before to go sign up if for no other reason than it's the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Having insurance isn't a bad thing, and while it's easy for us who have good insurance and have always had good insurance to and moan and complain that it raises our rates, or in your case HYPOTHETICALLY raise your rates, people who've had zero option for health insurance in the past now have that peace of mind.

Also, people who have pre-existing conditions including cancer can't be denied coverage. I know I'm a `bleeding heart' over here but I honestly can't see how that's a bad thing. You call it redistribution of wealth, but even if I paid for my healthcare under the ACA out of my pocket, it'd total less than 4% of my income, and that's without subsides. I wouldn't be too upset considering that would keep me from havnig to declare bankruptcy if I get knocked off my bike by a drunk or texting driver while hopefully providing healthcare that will keep someone else from having to declare bankruptcy if they get knocked off their bike by a drunk or texting driver.


First you seem to be confused. I never said I was against anyone having insurance. I don't consider you a bleeding heart for wanting those people denied coverage in the past to be able to purchase it. Second, let's clear up any confusion between hypothetical and reality. I have had a large number of clients lose their coverage, cancelled due to ACA mandates. So far I have had exactly 1 person who will be paying a lower premium (0.9% to be exact) but for a higher deductible and higher out of pocket max so when she gets hit by that car, the small premium savings is wiped out by the $2350 higher out of pocket. FYI, over a sample of several hundred the average premium increase is running 40% and that 1 person with a lower premium leaves 99.5% paying more.

Second, it is very nice that your premium driven by age or location is such a small percentage of you salary which may be a good one. However all is not so good with the rest of the world,

Here are some numbers for a couple that are not so fortunate. Both age 60 living in San Jose. He makes $70k/year, she can't work due to advancing RA. At that wage he does not qualify for a subsidy. They are being forced off their old plan because of the ACA mandates. They have been paying just over $8000/year for insurance. The cheapest ACA plan for them is $12,948/year with a higher deductible and higher out of pocket.

Doing some quick math that works out to a premium equal to 18.5% of their PRE-TAX income, not exactly 4%. Now if he gets hit by that car and has to pay the $12,700 out of pocket as well that totals $25,648 or almost 37% of their PRE-TAX income. Given that CA has the highest state income tax rates in the country along with the federal income tax rates that number is easily 40-45% of their take home pay.

That is the reality my clients are dealing with. No subsidy, much higher rates, higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses, higher drug costs and fewer doctors.

My problem is I am not finding anyone here in CA that is better off on the new ACA plans then they were before. That includes my 29 year old daughter. It is not an issue of 'some' paying more and some paying less. It's people who pay for their own coverage overwhelmingly paying more, people getting subsidies causing all taxpayers (the 52% that actually pay taxes) to pay still more and govt getting a shiny new entitlement program to manage badly. And before you tell me healthcare is more important than money please accept the economic reality that money is not an inexhaustible resource. People paying thousands of dollars more for healthcare premiums, even if they never go to the doctor, is money not spent on something else, slowing down our economy. The subsidies and millions moving to Medicaid are costing the govt billions. In the event you don't remember, the govt makes no money. All its 'revenue' is that it takes from its citizens.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » ACA Calculator Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Regulation to cancel insurance policies wasn't in the ACA?

Started by tuwood
Views: 2116 Posts: 15

2013-11-26 5:47 PM tuwood

The ACA has revealed ignorance about...

Started by pga_mike
Views: 2042 Posts: 23

2013-10-09 9:17 AM Jackemy1

The ACA started with "Conservatives"?

Started by pga_mike
Views: 1507 Posts: 11

2013-10-04 1:26 PM kevin_trapp

ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4

Started by tuwood
Views: 7949 Posts: 90

2013-11-10 7:50 AM NXS

ACA Employer Mandate Pushed to 2015

Started by Aarondb4
Views: 1146 Posts: 4

2013-07-08 9:20 AM tuwood
RELATED ARTICLES
date : September 6, 2011
author : mikericci
comments : 4
Triathlon Coach explains Zone 1 and Zone 2 training and the benefits of each training zone